Ecuador vs Zambia: Vegetables Primary: Gross Production Value … square kilometre SLC

Ecuador
0.8047 1000 SLC per square kilometre
in 2023
Zambia
0.7112 1000 SLC per square kilometre
in 2023
Ecuador rank
127th
Zambia rank
129th

Vegetables Primary: Gross Production Value … square kilometre SLC over time

  • Ecuador
  • Zambia
0.20.40.60.8196119922023

How they compare

Ecuador currently reports 0.8047 1000 SLC per square kilometre against 0.7112 1000 SLC per square kilometre in Zambia, a difference of 0.0935 1000 SLC per square kilometre.

That makes Ecuador's figure about 1.1 times Zambia's.

The two have swapped places 4 times across 49 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Ecuador ahead.

Ecuador ranks 127th and Zambia ranks 129th of 136 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Ecuador averaged higher in 4 and Zambia in 3.

Head to head by decade

Decade Ecuador Zambia Difference Ahead
1960s 0.5006 1000 SLC per square kilometre 0.2761 1000 SLC per square kilometre 0.2245 1000 SLC per square kilometre Ecuador
1970s 0.3197 1000 SLC per square kilometre 0.3848 1000 SLC per square kilometre 0.0651 1000 SLC per square kilometre Zambia
1980s 0.3878 1000 SLC per square kilometre 0.5013 1000 SLC per square kilometre 0.1135 1000 SLC per square kilometre Zambia
1990s 0.482 1000 SLC per square kilometre 0.5874 1000 SLC per square kilometre 0.1054 1000 SLC per square kilometre Zambia
2000s 0.6862 1000 SLC per square kilometre 0.542 1000 SLC per square kilometre 0.1442 1000 SLC per square kilometre Ecuador
2010s 0.7355 1000 SLC per square kilometre 0.6757 1000 SLC per square kilometre 0.0598 1000 SLC per square kilometre Ecuador
2020s 0.8189 1000 SLC per square kilometre 0.7066 1000 SLC per square kilometre 0.1123 1000 SLC per square kilometre Ecuador

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher vegetables primary — gross production value (constant 2014-2016), Ecuador or Zambia?
Ecuador, at 0.8047 1000 SLC per square kilometre against 0.7112 1000 SLC per square kilometre in Zambia as of 2023.
What is the difference in vegetables primary — gross production value (constant 2014-2016) between Ecuador and Zambia?
0.0935 1000 SLC per square kilometre, with Ecuador ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Zambia?
49 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Ecuador and Zambia rank globally for vegetables primary — gross production value (constant 2014-2016)?
Ecuador ranks 127th and Zambia ranks 129th of 136 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Vegetables Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand SLC), per square kilometre. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Ecuador vs Zambia: Vegetables Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016). Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 11 October 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/vegetables-primary-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-slc-per-square/ecuador/zambia/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/vegetables-primary-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-slc-per-square/ecuador/zambia/">Ecuador vs Zambia: Vegetables Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Vegetables Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand SLC), per square kilometre
Unit
1000 SLC per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
136 places, 7,598 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Vegetables Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand SLC) divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.